Comments

I reckon people are overplaying the Kallis retirement and lack of spinner. Yes SA doesn't have a spinner that will run through a batting order like Ajmal but Peterson is a perfectly serviceable spinner who takes his fair share of wickets. He's not just holding up an end like Harris did a couple years back.

Kallis has at least 3 more years and Smith just turned 32. Don't know why Geoff even mentioned Smith really. As for Kallis, the answer is already playing. JP Duminy. He's not Kallis, no one is. But he can do what Kallis does in his current form, except he's a spinner of course. I'm not convinced SA will go tumbling down when Kallis retires as most are.

Posted by
armchairjohnny
on
March 1, 2013, 12:48 GMT

I don't understand why people feel the need to belittle South Africa's achievements. Comparing them with sides from earlier eras serves no purpose since the comparison will always be skewed (Batsmen had it tougher in the 70's and 80's, but the converse is also true -- bowlers had it far easier. Bowlers like Holding and Marshall could bowl on worn tracks, were lucky that they got to bowl with batsmen without helmets, and could increase their wickets tally by rasily dismissing rabbits-for-tail-enders who didn't know one end of a bat from the other.) South Africa are the best team in the world today and others would be better off trying to improve their cricket rather than worrying about how long (or short) South Africa's reign at the top will be for. Let's also enjoy Steyn whilst we can, I've no doubt he will be regarded as one of the all time great bowlers when his time is up.

Posted by
shaolinfist
on
March 1, 2013, 11:55 GMT

Look, West Indies of the late 70s and 80s were a genuinely great team. They played when batsmen didn't have protective armour and restrictive rules to protect them from the bowlers and when they played, all teams, Australia, England, India,Pakistan etc. also had some of their legends of the game. Australia was strong in the 2000s as barring India, other teams were weak. Further, barring Australia, the quality of other teams bowling from 2000-2008 had majorly gone down. India was briefly strong for two years albeit not a typical no.1 because everyone else was rebuilding. South Africa is no.1 now because barring England, everyone else is in transition or rebuilding. South Africa is still a better no.1 than England and India were in recent time and to be frank, there is nothing wrong or missing with the current South African side, but there is nothing exceptional about them either. I personally feel that Cronje's team of late nineties was stronger.

Posted by
on
March 1, 2013, 11:29 GMT

@Jayzuz. Not only are the current SA bowlers better than anything doing the rounds at the moment but he bowling depth of SA at the moment is way better than anything else on offer from any other team. That is matter of fact. Kleinveldt had his 1st test in Aus and you are breaking him down? Ridiculous!Abbot had his 1st test against Pak and already you are making assumptions? Again, ridiculous! Sounds like you are bitter and envious of the Saffers at present!! Don't worry, many are and should be as well!

Posted by
BillyCC
on
March 1, 2013, 10:19 GMT

@jayzuz, if you read the rest of my post, I explained that by saying that South Africa played poorly in the first two tests against Australia. Philander averages 17 but relies on the pitch too much? Fine, I'll take some of that. @smahuta, the fact is, South Africa have only been number 1 for only one year, so please, none of your nonsense that they've dominated for the past four years. Dominance is winning home and away against all oppposition for an extended period of time.

Posted by
UK_Chap
on
March 1, 2013, 10:10 GMT

There is no doubt South Africa are a fanatastic side, they have great batsmen and some great bowlers. The play as team very well and that masks any deficiencies they may have. I look froward to see how well they do in a few months time in the UAE.

Posted by
Jayzuz
on
March 1, 2013, 9:17 GMT

@billycc, SA has a quality pace attack with depth? You obviously didn't watch the series vs Australia. Steyn is the best. Morkel is very good, but inconsistent - he averages 30 - even Siddle beats that comfortably. Philander relies on the pitch far too much, as we saw clearly in Australia. Kleinvelt is barely test standard, and got humiliated in Australia. As for their new guy, one test on a green wicket vs a subcontinent side is too easy a ride to make any definite conclusions. The other issue with SA is that they are no better than other teams in the other formats, which is why their overall record vs Australua is still poor - 4 wins in the last 12 internationals. If their depth was so great, this would not be the case.

Posted by
Jayzuz
on
March 1, 2013, 8:01 GMT

Most of England's players are the wrong side of 30, and they will need to find a whole heap of newbies in the next few years. So expect a period of decline for them beginning in about 2 years time. Australia has mostly youngsters, and they will be coming into their dominant years just as England is going the other way.

Posted by
philvic
on
March 1, 2013, 7:18 GMT

West Indies were not tested too much in the 70s and early 80s. England were generally weak and the Aussie batting was nothing special in the 70s and their bowling was weak in the 80s. The Indian bowling was also substandard outside India. The strongest other country at that stage were SA who couldn't play Tests because of apartheid. I am not disputing that WI were a great side but often things look even better with hindsight. Test cricket is probably as strong and competitive now as it ever was; I just wish there was more of it instead of trivial T20 rubbish.

Posted by
Smahuta
on
March 1, 2013, 7:06 GMT

The fact of the matter is, SA have not lost a series for 4 years already, another 2 years of dominance is already a long period of time no matter how you look at it. You think the great Aussie side won every test match? no in fact they seemed to have penchant for losing a dead rubber when they were 4 nil up. SA would be an even better side if they played more test cricket. When was the last time they played a 5 match series? I cant remember myself, but with a dull10 match ashes series coming up between to ordinary sides, it makes me wonder what the heck is going on with the administrators these days.

World Cup 2015

#politeenquiries Jarrod Kimber and Melinda Farrell answer your twitter questions (and do a little dance at the end): Why don't we see many good players from Associate nations get County or Sheffield Shield contracts? | Mar 3, 2015